4/25/2009

At Copyrights and Campaigns, Ben Sheffner reports that the folks at Founding Bloggers are taking on CNN:

Founding Bloggers, the conservative web site that had its video critical of CNN’s reporting on a Chicago “tea party” removed by YouTube after the cable network sent a DMCA takedown notice, is not backing down. On Thursday, Founding Bloggers submitted a DMCA counternotice to YouTube, starting the clock ticking toward a possible re-posting by YouTube — or a lawsuit that could establish important legal precedent regarding the contours of copyright law’s fair use doctrine, especially as it applies to use of news video by political bloggers. “We’re not going to let this just go away,” Andrew Marcus of Founding Bloggers told C&C in an interview earlier today.

Nice.

Ben was a driving force behind this effort, and was the one who first told me about it, so he deserves a lot of credit.

Meanwhile, Founding Bloggers has uploaded a new in-depth report of the Chicago Tea Party, together with the offending footage:

Finally, Andrew Marcus of Founding Bloggers sent me a nice note, thanking me for my role in publicizing their fight with CNN. Happy to be a part of it, but the real credit goes to Founding Bloggers for their excellent video, and to Ben Sheffner for getting out the word and doing the legal analysis.

The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested.

No, that’s not what the ruling says, and that’s not what the Justice Department is requesting in its brief. The Obama administration has not argued that the police should not provide lawyers to criminal suspects, or anything like it.

Michigan v. Jackson covers what happens after the defendant gets to court — namely, the following situation:

Defendant is arraigned in court and asserts his right to counsel. Police then approach him and advise him of his Miranda rights. He waives them. They advise him that he has a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. He waives it. He then voluntarily provides a confession to the crime. (You can even assume that the confession is recorded, so that we know all these waivers were properly obtained, and there was no coercion involved.)

A court will still suppress that voluntary confession., because of Michigan v. Jackson, which says that any confession resulting from interrogation initiated by the police must be suppressed if the right to counsel has been asserted by the defendant at his arraignment.

The Justice Department is simply arguing that a defendant should be able to waive these rights and give a voluntary confession that won’t be suppressed. Horrors!

Ed claims that the Justice Department’s brief shows that we have an “autocratic administration determined to wipe out civil rights.” We may have such an administration, but this legal position is not evidence of it.

The Divine Mrs. Dunphy points out this morning that sometimes you read an obituary and say to yourself, “I wish I had known that man.” You may have that reaction in reading about former UCLA football coach Bill Barnes, who passed away Thursday at age 91. We were blessed indeed to know him, and we will miss him. Few men as kind as he have ever lived.

The L.A. Times‘s James Rainey sanctimoniously pronounces that Miss California is getting too much attention, and Steve Schmidt is getting too little:

My search engine tells me that Prejean got easily double the news coverage that John McCain’s former campaign manager received when he announced last week that he supported gay marriage.

Well, actually, he first announced this on March 25, which isn’t exactly last week. But who’s counting?

“Denying two consenting adults the right to form a beautiful commitment to one another denies them two of our most natural rights: liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Steve Schmidt said in a speech imploring Republicans to reconsider their widespread opposition to gay marriage.

Those who have been around Schmidt, whose sister is a lesbian, know he has put considerable thought into his position. But the big, bald politico never won a swimsuit competition. And he didn’t conduct a televised slappy-fight over his beliefs. So his statement quickly disappeared into the media maw.

Ha, ha! Just kidding! Actually, his column is all about Miss California, complete with picture:

The bit about Schmidt occupies paragraphs 17-19 in a 24-paragraph column about Miss California.

And the L.A. Times front page at this moment? I just searched it for Steve Schmidt and found nothing. But I did see this:

As far as the big revelation about Steve Schmidt, that must have been covered in the L.A. Times, given its importance to Rainey. After all, it’s not like the L.A. Times is all superficial and stuff.

Whoops! Looks like the only mention of Steve Schmidt in the L.A. Times since March 24 has been in Rainey’s column!

Media critic, criticize thy own paper.

And please: with a great deal less sanctimony. kthxbai

UPDATE: Speaking of Miss California and journalism, there is a raging journalistic debate regarding whether she can claim to be a Christian while posing for pictures like the one below the fold. Feel free to weigh in on this Important Journalistic Question.